Another win for Obama - Page 2

finnbow · #11 03-25-2010, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeke

This may sound aluminum foil hattery, but here's my theory.

For the same reason we walk away from any, known, weapons system: there's something better that we DON'T know about...

Sea-based missile defense.

piece-itpete · #12 03-25-2010, 10:42 AM

If the land based system doesn't work, how does the sea based system?

I believe MAD is dead, largely becasue the USSR is dead. Science and technology is our great asset - it scares the bad guys. (And it should!)

Pete

Grumpy · #13 03-25-2010, 10:48 AM

We get rid of ours, just in time for Iran, packy, and korea to take over the world.

Yea..

Charles · #14 03-25-2010, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

If the land based system doesn't work, how does the sea based system?

I believe MAD is dead, largely becasue the USSR is dead. Science and technology is our great asset - it scares the bad guys. (And it should!)

Pete

Love your new Avatar, will have a smile on my face for the rest of the day.

Chas

finnbow · #15 03-25-2010, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

If the land based system doesn't work, how does the sea based system?

I believe MAD is dead, largely becasue the USSR is dead. Science and technology is our great asset - it scares the bad guys. (And it should!)

Pete

It's based on the proven and mobile Aegis missile system and goes after ICBM's in their vulnerable launch phase (while they still are attached to a fire-spewing easily sensed and tracked rockets). Once the warhead is in space, it's just another piece of space junk that we must accurately discriminate from all the other junk up there (including decoys).

As for MAD being dead, it happens to be the only proven deterrent to the first use of nuclear weapons. Even crazies like Ahmadinejad and Korea's Kim still have survival instincts and our remaining 1600 nukes should keep them nervous. Also the sea-based sytem can go to Korea, the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf while the ground based system is anchored in place.

d-ray657 · #16 03-25-2010, 10:57 AM

Just a question for the budget conscious: does it cost more to maintain the missiles than it does to deactivate them, and, I would assume, dispose of them? Does the sea-based missile defense have a lower price tag than the land-based? Are we going to have some real savings in defense costs if this is ultimately approved?

Regards,

D-Ray

BlueStreak · #17 03-28-2010, 10:37 AM

How dare you point out that Obama has accomplished something. Haven't you figured out that it's your patriotic duty to badmouth everything he does? Shame on you, Don! Shame!

Dave

d-ray657 · #18 03-28-2010, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

How dare you point out that Obama has accomplished something. Haven't you figured out that it's your patriotic duty to badmouth everything he does? Shame on you, Don! Shame!

Dave

And a hearty welcome back to you, sir.

Those improvements you mentioned in Ohio are due to the efforts by the Republicans in congress, for sure.

Regards,

D-Ray

piece-itpete · #19 03-29-2010, 09:26 AM

Finn I agree that we currently need MAD regarding the nuts in the ME.

But why on earth wouldn't we be developing a more sane deterrence?

And you guys, remember, China will not stay dorment much longer.

Pete

Zeke · #20 03-29-2010, 09:33 AM

I'm not a big MAD guy, more of a tactical nuke aficionado.

I mean, if we destroy your nation to the point of there being nothing left for us to invade and pillage, what's the point?

We just need to destroy your strategic weapons areas and manufacturing centers, leaving the brothels and McDonald's intact...